{¶1}
The appellant, mother of two minor children, appeals the
juvenile court's decision that it is in the best interest
of her children, S.H. and J.M., to be placed in the permanent
custody of the Cuyahoga County Department of Children and
Family Services ("CCDCFS"). The mother asks that
this court reverse the juvenile court's decision and
remand for further proceedings. As required by App.R.
11.1(D), this court has expedited the hearing and disposition
of this appeal. We affirm.

{¶2}
This case involves two children, J.M. and S.H. J.M. was
committed to the temporary custody of CCDCFS on December 19,
2014, and S.H. on May 29, 2015. On August 25, 2016, CCDCFS
filed a motion to modify temporary custody to permanent
custody pursuant to R.C. 2151.413. On September 1, 2017, the
mother filed a motion for legal custody of both children. The
trial court held a hearing, and issued a judgment that
granted CCDCFS's motion to modify temporary custody to
permanent custody, and denied the mother's motion for
legal custody of both children.

I.Facts

{¶3}
During the permanent custody trial, several witnesses
testified as to the fitness of the mother. Jamie Saunt
("Saunt"), an early childhood therapist who
provided therapy to S.H., testified first. According to
Saunt, S.H. suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder
stemming from the sexual abuse she endured from her
mother's boyfriend. S.H. also disclosed to Saunt, during
play therapy, that she was exposed to her older sister
engaging in sexual behavior with her boyfriend. S.H. also
disclosed to Saunt that her brother, J.M., kissed her on her
mouth and smacked her butt. In addition, S.H. told Saunt
that, at her mother's house, S.H.'s brother took his
private part and kissed her private part with it. When Saunt
asked S.H. to explain further, S.H. told Saunt that her
brother put his private part inside of her.

{¶4}
Next, Annette Gannon ("Gannon"), the case manager
for J.M., testified that she visited J.M. at his foster
parent's home. She stated that J.M. and his foster parent
have bonded, and his needs are being met. J.M. is currently
in therapy for his past sexualized behaviors. Gannon also
testified that J.M.'s behaviors have improved since being
placed in his foster home.

{¶5}
Kenneta Bey ("Bey"), an extended social worker for
CCDCFS, who was assigned to J.M.'s and S.H.'s case
testified that a total of six children were removed from the
mother's care. Four children were placed with their
respective fathers, and J.M. and S.H. were placed in foster
care. The paternity of J.M. could not be established. Bey
testified that the children were removed from the
mother's home because the children were sexually abused
in the mother's care. Bey testified to the court that the
mother was placed on a case plan with objectives that she had
to complete. The mother was ordered "to get mental
health services, family therapy, to maintain housing and
employment, and basic needs for the children and
parenting." (Tr. 40.) Bey claimed that the mother
resides in a one-bedroom apartment, which is not satisfactory
for the amount of children who need to live with her. The
mother also is inconsistent with her mental health services.

{¶6}
Bey also testified that for a short period of time, the
mother was having overnight visitation with all six of her
children, but it did not last long because of inappropriate
incidents. One incident that occurred was when S.H. was in
the bed with the mother and her male friend, and witnessed
sexual behaviors. Other incidents consisted of the mother
leaving the minor children unsupervised in her home many
times.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;{&para;7}
There were reports that a man was living in the home with the
mother, and it was reported that this same man sexually
abused some of the children. The mother denied that the man
was living there, despite her children's accounts, and
claimed that his stuff was still there because she spent her
money on it, and did not want to destroy his stuff or get rid
of it. Bey conducted another ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.